One year of Go
Sean Kelly
sean at invisibleduck.org
Sat Nov 13 09:01:55 PST 2010
retard Wrote:
> Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:53:14 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 15:07 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: [ . . . ]
> >> The lack of generics and dangerous concurrency are much bigger issues.
> >> If D can actually be shown to be a useful concurrent language, instead
> >> of the buggy and incomplete mess it is now, then it might have
> >> something to crow about.
> >
> > What do you see as wrong with the Go model for concurrency?
> >
> > I find the process/message-passing approach infinitely easier than
> > shared-memory multithreading with all its needs for locks, monitors,
> > semaphores or lock-free programming. True operating systems will need
> > these latter techniques, but surely they are operating system level ones
> > and should never have to appear in application code?
>
> There's also the software transactional memory technology.
... which is an interesting idea with some fundamental problems (possibly solvable). There was a series of articles on this in ACM Communications about a year ago. I'll have to dig up the articles for specifics though.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list